Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation vs. Maximo Bonifacio, et al.

An action for quieting of title cannot prosper absent the fourth element of a cloud on title—that the challenged instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding may be prejudicial to the title sought to be quieted; where the challenged title covers a different parcel, the plaintiff may still obtain declaratory relief under Rule 63 upon establishing ownership and the validity of its titles.

Phil-Ville traces its titles to Lot 23-A of the Maysilo Estate under OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917, while respondents are the surviving heirs of Eleuteria Rivera Vda. de Bonifacio, whose TCT No. C-314537 traces to an OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917. The Maysilo Estate has been the subject of conflicting claims over the date and existence of OCT No. 994, with prior rulings in MWSS vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals later addressed in Manotok Realty, Inc. vs. CLT Realty Development Corporation. Those prior rulings and the subsequent Manotok resolutions form the backdrop for the parties’ competing claims over the validity of titles derived from the two OCT No. 994 dates.

Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation is the registered owner of three parcels of land designated as Lots 1-G-1, 1-G-2 and 1-G-3 of subdivision plan Psd-1-13-006209, located in Caloocan City, with a total area of 8,694 square meters and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 270921, 270922 and 270923. Prior to their subdivision, the lots were collectively designated as Lot 1-G of subdivision plan Psd-2731 registered in Phil-Ville’s name under TCT No. T-148220. These parcels form part of Lot 23-A of the Maysilo Estate originally covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917 in the name of Isabel Gil de Sola as judicial administratrix of the estate of Gonzalo Tuason and thirty-one others. Phil-Ville acquired the lots by purchase from N. Dela Merced and Sons, Inc. on July 24, 1984.

Earlier, on September 27, 1961, a group composed of Eleuteria Rivera, Bartolome P. Rivera, Josefa R. Aquino, Gregorio R. Aquino, Pelagia R. Angeles, Modesta R. Angeles, Venancio R. Angeles, Felipe R. Angeles, Fidela R. Angeles and Rosauro R. Aquino, claiming to be the heirs of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal, a co-owner to the extent of 1-189/1000% of the properties covered by OCT Nos. 982, 983, 984, 985 and 994 of the Hacienda Maysilo, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Land Registration Case No. 4557. They prayed for the substitution of their names on OCT No. 994 in place of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal. The petition was granted by the CFI in an Order dated May 25, 1962. Afterwards, the alleged heirs of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal filed a petition for partition of the properties covered by OCT Nos. 982, 983, 984, 985 and 994, docketed as Civil Case No. C-424 in the CFI of Rizal, Branch 12, Caloocan City. On December 29, 1965, the CFI granted the petition and appointed three commissioners to determine the most equitable division of the properties; the commissioners, however, failed to submit a recommendation.

Thirty-one years later, on May 22, 1996, Eleuteria Rivera filed a Supplemental Motion in Civil Case No. C-424 for the partition and segregation of portions of the properties covered by OCT No. 994. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 120, of Caloocan City, through Judge Jaime D. Discaya, granted the motion. In an Order dated September 9, 1996, Judge Discaya directed the segregation of portions of Lots 23, 28-A-1 and 28-A-2 and ordered the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City to issue to Eleuteria Rivera new certificates of title over them. Three days later, the Register of Deeds of Caloocan, Yolanda O. Alfonso, issued to Eleuteria Rivera TCT No. C-314537 covering a portion of Lot 23 with an area of 14,391.54 square meters. On December 12, 1996, the trial court issued another Order directing the acting Branch Clerk to issue a Certificate of Finality of the Order dated September 9, 1996.

Thereafter, Rosauro R. Aquino filed a petition for certiorari contesting the Order of December 12, 1996 and impugning the partial partition and adjudication to Eleuteria Rivera of Lots 23, 28-A-1 and 28-A-2 of the Maysilo Estate, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 43034. Meanwhile, a writ of possession was issued in Eleuteria Rivera’s favor on December 26, 1996 upon the Order of Judge Discaya issued on the same date. Sheriff Cesar L. Cruz served a Notice to Vacate dated January 2, 1997 upon Phil-Ville, requiring it to vacate Lots 23-A and 28. Bonifacio Shopping Center, Inc., which occupied Lot 28-A-2, was also served a copy of the notice. Bonifacio Shopping Center, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 43009. In a Decision dated February 19, 1997, the appellate court set aside and declared void the Order and Writ of Possession dated December 26, 1996 and the Notice to Vacate dated January 2, 1997, explaining that a party who has not been impleaded in a case cannot be bound by a writ of possession issued in connection therewith.

On February 22, 1997, Eleuteria Rivera Vda. de Bonifacio died at the age of 96. On April 23, 1997, the Secretary of Justice issued Department Order No. 137 creating a special committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the issuance of OCT No. 994 and its derivative titles. On April 29, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 43034 granting Rosauro R. Aquino’s petition and setting aside the RTC’s Order of September 9, 1996, which granted Eleuteria Rivera’s prayer for partition and adjudicated in her favor portions of Lots 23, 28-A-1 and 28-A-2 of the Maysilo Estate; the appellate court likewise set aside the Order and the Writ of Possession dated December 26, 1996.

On June 5, 1997, Phil-Ville filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages against the surviving heirs of Eleuteria Rivera Vda. de Bonifacio and the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City, docketed as Civil Case No. C-507 in the RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 122. On October 7, 1997, then Senator Marcelo B. Fernan filed P.S. Resolution No. 1032 directing the Senate Committees on Justice and Human Rights and on Urban Planning, Housing and Resettlement to conduct a thorough investigation, in aid of legislation, of the irregularities surrounding the titling of the properties in the Maysilo Estate. In a Decision dated March 24, 2000, the Caloocan RTC ordered the quieting of Phil-Ville’s titles over Lots 1-G-1, 1-G-2 and 1-G-3, declared TCT Nos. 270921, 270922 and 270923 valid, declared TCT No. C-314537 null and void, ordered the surrender and cancellation of the latter title, and ordered the private defendants to pay attorney’s fees of ₱10,000.00 plus costs. In upholding Phil-Ville’s titles, the trial court adopted the conclusion in Senate Committee Report No. 1031 dated May 25, 1998 that there is only one OCT No. 994, registered on May 3, 1917, and that OCT No. 994 purportedly registered on April 19, 1917, from which Eleuteria Rivera’s title originated, does not exist. The trial court also found that it was physically impossible for respondents to be the heirs of Eleuteria Rivera’s grandmother, Maria de la Concepcion Vidal, one of the registered owners of OCT No. 994, because Maria de la Concepcion was born sometime in 1903, later than Eleuteria Rivera who was born in 1901. The RTC pointed out that, contrary to the contentions of Rivera’s heirs, there is no overlapping of titles inasmuch as Lot 23 lies far from Lot 23-A, where Phil-Ville’s lands are located.

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction in resolving respondents’ petition for review since it had dismissed their appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 66547 for failure to file brief.
• Defective Verification and Non-Forum Shopping: Petitioner pointed out that respondents’ petition was defective because Maximo Bonifacio alone signed its verification and certification of non-forum shopping without proof that he was authorized to sign for the other respondents.
• Inapplicability of MWSS and Gonzaga: Petitioner contended that the rulings in MWSS vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals will not invalidate its titles because it is not a party to any of said cases.
• Senate and DOJ Findings: Petitioner invoked the finding in the joint investigation by the Senate and the Department of Justice that there is only one OCT No. 994, that is, the one registered on May 3, 1917.
• Trial Court Jurisdiction: Petitioner maintained that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear its action since it is one for quieting of title and not for annulment of the CFI Order dated May 25, 1962.
• Estoppel: Petitioner argued in the alternative that respondents were already in estoppel to raise the issue of jurisdiction.

• Reliance on MWSS and Gonzaga: Respondents relied on MWSS vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals, which upheld the titles emanating from OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917; therefore, petitioner had no cause of action to seek the nullification of their title, which is a derivative of said OCT.
• Effect of Withdrawal of Appeal: Respondents reiterated that since they had withdrawn their appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 66547, the Court of Appeals decision therein applies only to Danilo Bonifacio and Carmen Bernardino.
• Nature of Action: Respondents believed that petitioner’s action is one for annulment of judgment, which is foreign to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of respondents’ petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 62211 despite the earlier dismissal of their appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 66547.
• Jurisdiction over the Complaint / Nature of Action: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring that the trial court had no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. C-507 because the complaint was allegedly an action for annulment of the CFI Order dated May 25, 1962.
• Cloud on Title: Whether TCT No. C-314537 in the name of Eleuteria Rivera constitutes a cloud over petitioner’s titles over portions of Lot 23-A of the Maysilo Estate.
• Declaratory Relief: Whether Phil-Ville is entitled to declaratory relief after establishing ownership and the validity of its titles despite the absence of a cloud.

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: No. The Court of Appeals properly assumed jurisdiction over respondents’ case after the Supreme Court referred it in G.R. No. 142640 by Resolution dated September 25, 2000; the issue was a question of fact beyond the Supreme Court’s power to resolve. The dismissal in CA-G.R. CV No. 66547 did not bind respondents because they had withdrawn their appeal.
• Jurisdiction over the Complaint / Nature of Action: No. The trial court did not err in taking cognizance of the action. The nature of an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the relief sought, not by its caption; the complaint sought removal of a cloud and/or confirmation of ownership, not annulment of the CFI Order.
• Cloud on Title: No. Although TCT No. C-314537 was shown to be invalid, it did not cover the same parcels as petitioner’s titles; the fourth element of a cloud on title—that the instrument may be prejudicial to the title sought to be quieted—was absent.
• Declaratory Relief: Yes. Phil-Ville established ownership and the validity of its titles, and its complaint, filed after a notice to vacate but before dispossession, sought only an authoritative declaration of rights; it is therefore entitled to declaratory relief under Rule 63.

• Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: The Court of Appeals properly assumed jurisdiction over respondents’ case in CA-G.R. SP No. 62211 after the Supreme Court, by Resolution dated September 25, 2000, referred respondents’ petition in G.R. No. 142640 to the Court of Appeals for adjudication on the merits because the case did not involve pure questions of law. The issue raised by respondents as petitioners in G.R. No. 142640 was purely a question of fact—essentially a determination of ownership of the lots purportedly covered by Phil-Ville’s titles—which was beyond the Supreme Court’s power to resolve. The dismissal of the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 66547 did not bind respondents because the Court of Appeals itself recognized their withdrawal of appeal; only Danilo Bonifacio and Carmen Bernardino remained appellants in that case. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of respondents’ petition.
• Jurisdiction over the Complaint / Nature of Action: The trial court did not err in taking cognizance of Phil-Ville’s action. The nature of an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought, and by the law in effect when the action was filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or only some of such relief. Phil-Ville’s complaint alleged that TCT No. C-314537, though apparently valid, was in truth invalid because it covered Lot 23, which was not among the parcels described in OCT No. 994 on file with the Register of Deeds of Rizal and registered on May 3, 1917; that the OCT No. 994 allegedly registered on April 19, 1917, from which TCT No. C-314537 was derived, was not found in the records; and that a cloud existed because TCT No. C-314537 purported to cover the same parcels as Phil-Ville’s titles. The action therefore sought removal of a cloud and/or confirmation of ownership, not annulment of the CFI Order dated May 25, 1962. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in holding that the RTC lacked jurisdiction.
• Cloud on Title: For an action for quieting of title to prosper, two requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on the title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. Phil-Ville established the first requisite through the Deed of Absolute Sale from N. Dela Merced and Sons, Inc., OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917, the derivative titles leading to TCT Nos. 270921, 270922, and 270923, the Proyecto de particion de la Hacienda de Maysilo, tax receipts and certification, a plan prepared by the Chief of the Geodetic Surveys Division, and the DOJ Committee Report dated August 28, 1997 and Senate Committee Report No. 1031 dated May 25, 1998. Respondents, on the other hand, did not adduce competent evidence to establish their title or dispute Phil-Ville’s claim; their claim anchored on TCT No. C-314537 lacked legal basis because the RTC Order dated September 9, 1996 in Civil Case No. C-424, which resulted in the issuance of TCT No. C-314537, had been set aside by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43034. The Court further noted that the Manotok Realty, Inc. vs. CLT Realty Development Corporation December 14, 2007 Resolution laid down the definitive conclusions that there is only one OCT No. 994, registered on May 3, 1917; that any title tracing its source to OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 is void because such mother title is inexistent; and that MWSS vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals cannot apply to cases with the same or similar factual setting. The March 31, 2009 Resolution in Manotok Realty also noted serious doubts as to whether Eleuteria Rivera was an heir of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal; the Death Certificate of Eleuteria showed she was 96 when she died on February 22, 1997, meaning she was born in 1901, while Maria de la Concepcion Vidal was born in 1903, making Eleuteria two years older than her alleged grandmother. The Partition Plan of the Maysilo Estate also showed that Lot 23-A was awarded not to Maria de la Concepcion Vidal but to Isabel Tuason, Esperanza Tuason, Trinidad Jurado, Juan O’Farrell, and Angel O’Farrell; Vidal received Lot 6 and portions of Lots 10 and 17, subject to the usufructuary right of her mother Mercedes Delgado. Nevertheless, the second requisite for quieting of title requires that the challenged instrument may be prejudicial to the title sought to be quieted. The cloud on title consists of: (1) any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding; (2) which is apparently valid or effective; (3) but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable; and (4) may be prejudicial to the title sought to be quieted. The fourth element was absent. Although TCT No. C-314537 appeared valid but was subsequently shown to be invalid, it did not cover the same parcels described in Phil-Ville’s titles. Rivera’s title covered 14,391.54 square meters, while Phil-Ville’s lands had an aggregate area of 8,694 square meters. A comparison of the technical descriptions negated an overlapping of boundaries; the Plan prepared by Engr. Privadi J.G. Dalire, Chief of the Geodetic Surveys Division, showed that the land covered by TCT No. C-314537 lies far west of Phil-Ville’s lands under TCT Nos. 270921, 270922, and 270923. Thus, the existence of TCT No. C-314537 was not prejudicial to Phil-Ville’s titles insofar as it pertained to a different land.
• Declaratory Relief: An action to quiet title is a proceeding quasi in rem; the judgment binds only the parties who joined in the action. Phil-Ville was aware that the lots encompassed by its titles were not the same as those covered by respondents’ title, as alleged in its complaint: Lot 23, as described in TCT No. C-314537, when plotted using its tie line to MBM No. 1, Caloocan Cadastre, is outside Lot 23-A of the Maysilo Estate. This brought the action within Rule 63 of the Rules of Court on declaratory relief. Section 1 of Rule 63 allows any person interested under a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or other governmental regulation, to bring an action before breach or violation to determine any question of construction or validity and for a declaration of rights or duties; actions to quiet title or remove clouds may be brought under this Rule. An action for declaratory relief presupposes no actual breach and seeks an authoritative statement of rights and obligations for guidance, not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach. Phil-Ville filed its complaint after it was served a notice to vacate but before it could be dispossessed; the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43034 had earlier set aside the Order granting partial partition in favor of Eleuteria Rivera and the Writ of Possession issued pursuant thereto. Although the complaint was captioned as Quieting of Title and Damages, all that Phil-Ville prayed for was for the court to uphold the validity of its titles as against respondents’, consistent with declaratory relief where the judgment can be carried into effect without requiring the parties to pay damages or perform any act. Thus, while Phil-Ville failed to demonstrate that TCT No. C-314537 constituted a cloud over its title, it successfully established ownership over the subject properties and the validity of its titles, entitling it to declaratory relief.

• Quieting of Title — A common law remedy for removal of any cloud upon, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property. Under Article 476 of the Civil Code, whenever there is a cloud on title by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid or effective but is in truth invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or quiet the title. Two requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on the title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. The cloud itself consists of: (1) any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding; (2) which is apparently valid or effective; (3) but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable; and (4) may be prejudicial to the title sought to be quieted. In this case, Phil-Ville established title, but TCT No. C-314537 did not cover the same parcel and was not prejudicial to Phil-Ville’s title, so the fourth element was absent.
• Nature of an Action Determined by Allegations and Relief Sought — The nature of an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought by the plaintiff, and by the law in effect when the action was filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or only some of such relief. The Court applied this rule to hold that Phil-Ville’s complaint, though captioned for quieting of title, was not an action to annul the CFI Order dated May 25, 1962; it sought removal of a cloud and/or confirmation of ownership.
• Declaratory Relief under Rule 63 — An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of the rights arising thereunder. Its purpose is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, or contract for their guidance in enforcement or compliance, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach. It may be entertained before breach or violation. Section 1 of Rule 63 allows an action to quiet title or remove clouds to be brought under the Rule. The Court applied this to hold that Phil-Ville, having filed after a notice to vacate but before dispossession and having sought only a declaration of the validity of its titles, was entitled to declaratory relief despite failing to establish a cloud.
• Action Quasi In Rem — An action to quiet title is characterized as a proceeding quasi in rem. In such an action, an individual is named a defendant and the purpose is to subject his interests to the obligation or loan burdening the property. Actions quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership, or liability of a particular property but are intended to operate on these questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants; the judgment is binding only upon the parties who joined in the action. The Court noted that Phil-Ville was aware that the lots covered by its titles were not the same as those covered by respondents’ title, bringing the action within the purview of Rule 63.
• Maysilo Estate — OCT No. 994 — The Court relied on the definitive conclusions laid down in the December 14, 2007 Resolution in Manotok Realty, Inc. vs. CLT Realty Development Corporation: First, there is only one OCT No. 994; the mother title was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds on May 3, 1917, which should be reckoned as the date of registration, although OCT No. 994 may have resulted from the issuance of the decree of registration on April 19, 1917, such date cannot be considered the date of the title or the date when the title took effect. Second, any title that traces its source to OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 is void, for such mother title is inexistent. Third, the decisions in MWSS vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals cannot apply to cases with the same or similar factual setting. The Court also noted the March 31, 2009 Resolution in Manotok Realty, which reversed the November 29, 2005 decision and declared certain Araneta and Manotok titles valid, and which raised serious doubts as to Eleuteria Rivera’s claim as an heir of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal.

• "In order that an action for quieting of title may prosper, two requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy." — This is the Court’s canonical formulation of the requisites for an action for quieting of title, which it applied to test Phil-Ville’s complaint.
• "Thus, the cloud on title consists of: (1) any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding; (2) which is apparently valid or effective; (3) but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable; and (4) may be prejudicial to the title sought to be quieted. The fourth element is not present in the case at bar." — This passage enumerates the elements of a cloud on title and states the decisive reason the quieting action failed: the challenged title did not prejudice Phil-Ville’s title.
• "Any title that traces its source to OCT No. 994 dated [19] April 1917 is void, for such mother title is inexistent." — This is the definitive conclusion from the December 14, 2007 Resolution in Manotok Realty, which the Court used to characterize TCT No. C-314537 as invalid.
• "Thus, while petitioner was not able to demonstrate that respondents’ TCT No. C-314537 in the name of Eleuteria Rivera constitutes a cloud over its title, it has nevertheless successfully established its ownership over the subject properties and the validity of its titles which entitles it to declaratory relief." — This passage states the Court’s ultimate dispositional rationale: failure to prove a cloud did not bar declaratory relief because ownership and title validity were established.

• Manotok Realty, Inc. vs. CLT Realty Development Corporation, G.R. Nos. 123346, 134385 and 148767, November 29, 2005, 476 SCRA 305; December 14, 2007 Resolution, 540 SCRA 304; March 31, 2009 Resolution, 582 SCRA 583 — The Court cited the November 29, 2005 decision, which sustained MWSS and Gonzaga and declared void titles derived from OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917. The December 14, 2007 Resolution created a Special Division of the Court of Appeals and laid down definitive conclusions: only one OCT No. 994 exists, registered on May 3, 1917; any title tracing to OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 is void; and MWSS and Gonzaga cannot apply to cases with the same or similar factual setting. The March 31, 2009 Resolution reversed the November 29, 2005 decision and declared certain Araneta and Manotok titles valid, and noted serious doubts as to Rivera’s claim as an heir of Vidal.
• Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103558, November 17, 1992, 215 SCRA 783 — Cited by the Court of Appeals as a precedent upholding OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917; the Supreme Court later characterized this ruling, together with Gonzaga, as not applicable to cases operating under the same or similar factual setting as the Maysilo Estate cases.
• Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 96259 & 96274, September 3, 1996, 261 SCRA 327 — Cited by the Court of Appeals for the same proposition as MWSS; the Supreme Court later held that its conclusions regarding an OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 could not bind cases with the same or similar factual setting.
• Heirs of Toring vs. Heirs of Boquilaga, G.R. No. 163610, September 27, 2010 — Cited for the rule that the nature of an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought by the plaintiff.
• Eland Philippines, Inc. vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 173289, February 17, 2010, 613 SCRA 66 — Cited for the requisites of an action for quieting of title.
• San Pedro vs. Ong, G.R. No. 177598, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 767 — Cited for the quasi in rem nature of an action to quiet title and the rule that the judgment binds only the parties who joined in the action.

• Article 476, Civil Code — Defines a cloud on title and authorizes an action to remove such cloud or quiet title. The Court applied its elements and held that the fourth element—prejudice to the title sought to be quieted—was absent because TCT No. C-314537 covered a different parcel.
• Section 1, Rule 63, Rules of Court — Allows any person interested under a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or other governmental regulation to bring an action before breach or violation to determine any question of construction or validity and for a declaration of rights or duties; actions to quiet title or remove clouds may be brought under this Rule. The Court applied this provision to treat Phil-Ville’s complaint as one for declaratory relief.
• Section 13, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Cited in the Chief Justice’s certification that the conclusions in the decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion. No substantive application to the facts appears in the text.

Conchita Carpio Morales (Chairperson), Arturo D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno. No separate concurring opinions are summarized in the text.